Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes and his utter confusion . aka : Clueless in Dallas !
cdddraftsman
, virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . If he'd spend half of
his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods , than PF, AM and RH
all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
, further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire ! Naa ,
on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing , if it
weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
your average American 8th grade learning skills , I'll bet you get that
warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
say , 90% of Americans , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
believe in strange things . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
>, virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
>priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . If he'd spend half of
>his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
>as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods ,
Oh? Were they "falsehoods", you'd be quick to QUOTE them... but you can't, can
you?
>than PF, AM and RH
>all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
>the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
>be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
>, further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
>involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
>heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
>he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
>bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
>his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire ! Naa ,
>on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing ,
Pointing out that you, and most LNT'ers, are too cowardly to answer simple
questions, and deal with the *evidence* in this case?
That's what I'm doing. And quite well enough to make *you* look like a fool.
>if it
>weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
>and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
>non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
>your average American 8th grade learning skills , I'll bet you get that
>warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
>say , 90% of Americans , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
How embarrassing it must be to be forced, by your beliefs, to imagine that up to
90% of America are dumb.
>It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
>costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
>a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
>your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
>at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
>We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
>believe in strange things . Tom Lowry
Anyone wonder why Tom still refuses to respond to the evidence in this case?
Or have the courage to support his *own* words?
Bud
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
> , virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
> priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes .
Look where you`re at. You can`t go to the beach and be surprised to
find sand.
> If he'd spend half of
> his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
> as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods , than PF, AM and RH
> all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
> the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
> be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
> , further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
> involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
> heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
> he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
> bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
> his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire !
That`s why Ben will never run out of material. He has the efforts of
a thousand paranoid chimps at a thousand typewriters at his disposal.
Hundreds of thousands of hours of effort to undermine and attack the
official version, in order to nullify it, so it can be replaced by some
of the worst thinking ever displayed.
> Naa ,
> on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing , if it
> weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
> and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
> non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
> your average American 8th grade learning skills
That hit a little too close to home.
> , I'll bet you get that
> warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
> say , 90% of Americans
Oh, he`ll say 90%. He just can`t support it.
> , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
> It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
> costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
> a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
> your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
> at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
> We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
> believe in strange things . Tom Lowry
Well, the real reason I responded to this is to predict Ben`s
response. Since he (says he) has me plonked, he shouldn`t see this. I
just wonder how well I know the enemy, so here goes. Ben will allude to
all the other LNs who have run back to the moderated forum. He`ll claim
Tom is a coward who won`t address his carefully selected kook talking
points. And he won`t fail to include that LN indulge in attacks because
they are afraid to talk about the evidence. C`mon Ben, be your
predictable self, I hate to be proven wrong.
cdddraftsman
put 5 dollars down on shakey knees in the fifth . TL
lazu...@webtv.net
inside----and Ben runs a very tight ship. Instead of trying to assail
his ship with ideas, evidence and logic, all you guys can do is splash
aimlessly in the water------Such infantile behavior!
Bud
No doubt that the heads of kooks are watertight. Vacuum sealed, in
fact.
>-and Ben runs a very tight ship.
No doubt he is wound too tight.
> Instead of trying to assail
> his ship with ideas, evidence and logic, all you guys can do is splash
> aimlessly in the water------
What a horrible allegory. Ben is more like the foodstuffs squirrels
bury to fend against lean times. Before trying your hand at literary
license, get a learners permit.
>Such infantile behavior!
Yet still too high brow for the task at hand.
Ben Holmes
Isn't there *any* LNT'ers who are willing to debate the *evidence*???
In article <1151317117.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...
cdddraftsman
to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
common , mundane answer to these things ? You've somehow , in your
mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
curtj...@webtv.net
> Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
where debates are of primary focus?
> to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> common , mundane answer to these things ?
And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
to refuse to debate?
You've somehow , in your
> mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
1. In the Bible
2. On the Playgrounds
3. At the kitchen table
4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
5. All of the above
6. Add your own.
> geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> Ben Holmes wrote:
Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
be brought to trial to have closure? LHO was not even proved guilty by
trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
'fingered' over the years. By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
time of the shooting?
CJ
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish .
So your goal in posting here is what?
To try making points without anyone rebutting them?
>Your questions that led
>to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies ,
Actually, many of the questions were never asked back then - we didn't know
enough of the evidence at that time.
>but don't
>you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
>common , mundane answer to these things ?
Why would I act like there's "common, mundane answers" when you can't provide
them?
>You've somehow , in your
>mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
>thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
>of a nurological problem , on your part ?
Ad hominem.
>It certainly isn't
>geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered .
When no real investigation was conducted, and LHO was decided on as the sole
culprit within days, if not hours, then of *course* no one else was "fingered".
>You could
>also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
>Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
>fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
Ad hominem.
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
>
> Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> where debates are of primary focus?
This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > common , mundane answer to these things ?
>
> And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> to refuse to debate?
Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> You've somehow , in your
> > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
>
> Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
>
> 1. In the Bible
> 2. On the Playgrounds
> 3. At the kitchen table
> 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> 5. All of the above
> 6. Add your own.
Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
perspective.
> > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> be brought to trial to have closure?
We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
in very unimportant ways.
> LHO was not even proved guilty by
> trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> 'fingered' over the years.
And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> time of the shooting?
You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
victim.
<SNIP>
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151493922....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
> says...
> >
> >Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish .
>
>
> So your goal in posting here is what?
>
> To try making points without anyone rebutting them?
>
>
> >Your questions that led
> >to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies ,
>
> Actually, many of the questions were never asked back then - we didn't know
> enough of the evidence at that time.
>
>
> >but don't
> >you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> >common , mundane answer to these things ?
>
>
> Why would I act like there's "common, mundane answers" when you can't provide
> them?
>
>
>
> >You've somehow , in your
> >mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> >thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> >of a nurological problem , on your part ?
>
> Ad hominem.
>
>
> >It certainly isn't
> >geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered .
>
>
> When no real investigation was conducted, and LHO was decided on as the sole
> culprit within days, if not hours, then of *course* no one else was "fingered".
Yah, the people doing the investigating just refused to ignore all
the indications that Oz did this thing. I becomes much harder to
figure out what happened when you ignore all those indications.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1151530217.7...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
>> cdddraftsman wrote:
>> > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
>>
>> Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
>> where debates are of primary focus?
>
> This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
>
>> > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
>> > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
>> > common , mundane answer to these things ?
>>
>> And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
>> to refuse to debate?
============================================================================
> Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
I gave you volume & page AIDS Breath.
==============================================================================
curtj...@webtv.net
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> >
> > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > where debates are of primary focus?
>
> This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
>
trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
themselves away.
> > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> >
> > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > to refuse to debate?
>
> Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
>
Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
the assassination itself. They just don't care, and all they want to
do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
answers. They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
> > You've somehow , in your
> > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> >
> > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> >
> > 1. In the Bible
> > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > 3. At the kitchen table
> > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > 5. All of the above
> > 6. Add your own.
>
> Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> perspective.
>
Kook! Like that?!
> > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >
> > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > be brought to trial to have closure?
>
> We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> in very unimportant ways.
>
Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
> > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > 'fingered' over the years.
>
> And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
>
They go plenty of places, but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
> > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > time of the shooting?
>
> You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> victim.
>
He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
too. His actions speak volumes, and of course your understanding will
always get in the way.
CJ
> <SNIP>
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > >
> > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > where debates are of primary focus?
> >
> > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> >
> It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> themselves away.
Lets hope thats true.
> > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > >
> > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > to refuse to debate?
> >
> > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> >
> Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> the assassination itself.
I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.
> They just don't care, and all they want to
> do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> answers.
Asking questions isn`t progress.
> They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.
> > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > >
> > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > >
> > > 1. In the Bible
> > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > 5. All of the above
> > > 6. Add your own.
> >
> > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > perspective.
> >
> Kook! Like that?!
Just like that.
> > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> >
> > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > in very unimportant ways.
> >
> Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
any real way, do you?
> > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > 'fingered' over the years.
> >
> > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> >
> They go plenty of places,
Nowhere.
> but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
<snicker>
> > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > time of the shooting?
> >
> > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > victim.
> >
> He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> too.
In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.
> His actions speak volumes,
No, kooks read volumes into his actions.
> and of course your understanding will
> always get in the way.
Yah, understanding will get in the way. You are unfettered by it.
> CJ
>
> > <SNIP>
David VP
"His actions speak volumes"???????
Un-be-lievable!
Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
kooks/nuts)!
UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
assertion/allegation!
It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.
Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
Killer".
Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
know (other than a CT Kook)??
Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.
Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
Tippit disgusts me...greatly.
J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
fact to back them up.
If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
"True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).
Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
(i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
Ben Holmes
>"Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kooky but still a CTer") is to ask them right
>off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>
>If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
>first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
>certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
>11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
A good way to see if you're dealing with a nut or not, is to see if they are
willing to discuss the evidence.
David VP
Example of Ben's Kook Evidence:
Ben wants me to discuss the autopsy report (as it relates to the
so-called "BOH" wound that CTers insist was there, but, of course,
never existed in the first place). Ben insists that Humes, et al, DID
say in the actual autopsy report that there was a large hole in the
back of JFK's head. When, of course, no such BOH reference exists.
It all boils down to the word "somewhat". That one word (per Ben-Kook)
indicates, evidently, a "LARGE BOH *HOLE*, 13 CM. WIDE IN THE BOH".
That's called Kook-Logic. And Ben thrives on feeding it.
Right, Ben?
Phil Ossofee
course never existed in the first place" Von Pein, Reitzes whoever the
hell you are, you are one lying sack of shit. All the medical personnel
said the back of the head had a large hole in it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Kook "evidence" you mean, Ben?
>
>Example of Ben's Kook Evidence:
>
>Ben wants me to discuss the autopsy report (as it relates to the
>so-called "BOH" wound that CTers insist was there, but, of course,
>never existed in the first place).
"1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
Ask me what part of this you don't understand, Davey-Boy, and I'll be happy to
point out the facts.
>Ben insists that Humes, et al, DID
>say in the actual autopsy report that there was a large hole in the
>back of JFK's head. When, of course, no such BOH reference exists.
What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
>It all boils down to the word "somewhat". That one word (per Ben-Kook)
>indicates, evidently, a "LARGE BOH *HOLE*, 13 CM. WIDE IN THE BOH".
Words have meanings. You've lost the moment the wound *touches* the occipital.
For there's no part of the occipital that's *NOT* in the back of the head.
Indeed, a wound can be *ENTIRELY* in the parietal, yet be on the *back* of the
head.
You should get together with Tony... he likes to lie about this too.
David VP
Now perhaps you can explain why all 3 autopsy doctors signed off on the
most important documents in their lives (if it was a piece-of-shit
lie)?
All 3 of them were lying sacks, right?
And then explain why none of the autopsy photos shows the BOH wound?
All faked, right? So the HSCA photo panel (all 19 who signed off on the
"unaltered" declaration) was made up of nothing but lying sacks of dung
as well. Right?
You're goofy. But...being a CTer...what can we expect?
Dave "Scum" V.P.
David VP
And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Ben-Spook-Kook.
NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
What part of THAT don't you understand, Bennut?
Tell me again how all three autopsy docs are rotten cover-up agents? I
like hearing that theory...over & over. It's a howl.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
Coward, aren't you?
In article <1151635823.2...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
>
>And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Ben-Spook-Kook.
Considering that you snipped the portion of my post that deals with this, you
can simply go back to it to see the complete rebuttal to this.
Why do you insist on appearing stupid?
>NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
>ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
>RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
Untrue. When you need to lie about the evidence, all you've shown is that
you're a liar. I've already *quoted* the autopsy report's placement in the back
of the head...
Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
"behind", in Davey-boy's fevered imagination, means the top of the head.
>What part of THAT don't you understand, Bennut?
>
>Tell me again how all three autopsy docs are rotten cover-up agents?
They followed orders.
>I like hearing that theory...over & over. It's a howl.
"theory"?
You can't believe what the autopsy doctors *did* say.
curtj...@webtv.net
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Bud wrote:
> > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > > >
> > > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > > where debates are of primary focus?
> > >
> > > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> > >
> > It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> > trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> > endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> > themselves away.
>
> Lets hope thats true.
>
> > > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > > >
> > > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > > to refuse to debate?
> > >
> > > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> > >
> > Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> > whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> > up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> > handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> > ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> > the assassination itself.
>
> I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
> with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
> least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.
>
It's been established, but the conclusions which may be obvious to some
are just too painful for others.
> > They just don't care, and all they want to
> > do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> > answers.
>
> Asking questions isn`t progress.
>
Of course when Oswald is dead. No question is a good question.
> > They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> > against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
>
> The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
> amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
> in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.
>
You just glance at the claims and get on your soapbox. Obviously,
looking things up is not your forte.
> > > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > > >
> > > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > > >
> > > > 1. In the Bible
> > > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > > 5. All of the above
> > > > 6. Add your own.
> > >
> > > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > Kook! Like that?!
>
> Just like that.
>
Better yet, if it suits you, it fits you well.
> > > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> > >
> > > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > > in very unimportant ways.
> > >
> > Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> > anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
>
> You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
> any real way, do you?
>
Well, maybe not to solve the case, but to put in people's minds that
many people will use any leverage to get their way in this country
might be a deterrant for future sheanigans.
> > > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > > 'fingered' over the years.
> > >
> > > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> > >
> > They go plenty of places,
>
> Nowhere.
>
Bud The Quasher, yes! Bud the thinker, the investigator, nyet!
> > but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> > their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
>
> <snicker>
>
Kooks have low entertainment levels, folks.
> > > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > > time of the shooting?
> > >
> > > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > > victim.
> > >
> > He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> > too.
>
> In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
> will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
> reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
> at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
> support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.
>
That's just it. His own personal reasons are obviously NOT the case,
but you have to swallow. Tippit just doesn't choose some house out of
thousands in the neighborhood to just give a friendly honk. To you, he
must have had a hand slip off the wheel, or been in his regularly
assigned territory. Anything, but him maybe just being on the payroll
to be a currrier, or a warner...something to do with the case.
> > His actions speak volumes,
>
> No, kooks read volumes into his actions.
>
We, read the evidence and ask any question like any detective, and
build a case. You already have a case, and have nothing to do better
in life to serve your ego by 'thinking you have superiour thinking
abilities' (SirSlick). You need to do other things to make your life
have real self worth.
CJ
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Thanks, Phil Sack-O-Feces.
>
>Now perhaps you can explain why all 3 autopsy doctors signed off on the
>most important documents in their lives (if it was a piece-of-shit
>lie)?
They were ordered to do so.
>All 3 of them were lying sacks, right?
Of course they were. Their obeying of lawful orders made them so.
>And then explain why none of the autopsy photos shows the BOH wound?
Actually, F8 undoubtably does. But as to the BOH photo - it's forged.
>All faked, right? So the HSCA photo panel (all 19 who signed off on the
>"unaltered" declaration) was made up of nothing but lying sacks of dung
>as well. Right?
Some of them certainly were. Others were duped.
curtj...@webtv.net
> >>> "He {J.D. Tippit} may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination too. His actions speak volumes." <<<
>
>
> "His actions speak volumes"???????
>
> Un-be-lievable!
>
are coming, and happens to honk at the house of one of the cars that
crosses that Viaduct, that has the patsy, or accused assassin of the
President of the U.S.A.? Thousands of houses in that neighborhood, and
he picks that one! If he had miraculous powers of knowing who
committed the act, or knew himself and wanted to get at him, why didn't
he just go in the roominghouse and get him, or wait for him to come
out? If Oswald couldn't get to the crime scene of the Tippit murder in
time, how did he get to the Texas Theater so early when that would have
been even a longer walk?
What speaks volumes is these lackeys here, just going along with the
program, refusing to ask any meaningful investigative questions.
> Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
> WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
> cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
> favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
> kooks/nuts)!
>
By the conspirators? More likely, yes.
> UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
> assertion/allegation!
>
Wow, this one wants on stage during Academy time.
> It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
> killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
> CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
> unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
> 'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.
>
Can you absolutely be sure that he wasn't?
> Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
> grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
> Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
> is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
> Killer".
>
Maybe they should have looked at Tippit's hands to see if they were
dirty too, huh?
> Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
> to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
> murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
> know (other than a CT Kook)??
>
Doubtful, when he could have rubbed him out at the roominghouse, huh?
> Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
> except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.
>
> Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
> Tippit disgusts me...greatly.
>
You have no personal knowledge of the man. Many think he was a most
undesirable character, with his affairs on the job, and working in
seedy places of mob figures.
> J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
> other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
> fact to back them up.
>
It's just another case of people willing to make a hero out of someone
to make that a reason not to look at evidence. It's been around a long
time. It's called The End Run.
> If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
> "True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
> somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
> an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).
>
> Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
> (i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
> right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
>
> If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
> first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
> certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
> 11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Many who wrote on the case in
the sixties thought he was involved. Many will continue to do so.
CJ
David VP
Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.
And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
deeds. Please.
There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
(It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
It's obvious.)
There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.
Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
a gun too?
MPAA -- You listening here??
I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.
David VP
I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
heaven.
However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).
Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to
convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the exact
words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim TWICE.
He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE KILLER in BOTH of
his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.
A CT-kook wants to jump on this statement by Humes as something odd or
"conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks here in
the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring up all
the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and evidence that
surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders?
It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters, in order to try
to free guilty Presidential assassins.
tomnln
The WCR who published those Facts?
OR,
Those who "Quote" those Facts?
Apparently your ass in at the top of your head which explains why nothing
but feces comes outta you.
I warned you about aligning yourself with Bud & your other AIDS buddies.
Unless you're just here to Promote Nazi/Communist Justice.
NOW tell us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard photo?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151702888....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Talk about a "Magic Bullet".
Now the AIDS Distributers want us to believe that a bullet Exits from the
Same hole it Enters>
Only in AIDS Land.
Now tell us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard photo?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151702406.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> "HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired
>>> from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
>
> I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
> heaven.
>
> However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
> testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
> was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
> misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
> THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).
>
> Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks there might very well have meant
> to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN (and he probably DID
> mean just that, the more I ponder his somewhat-convoluted
> statement....because of the wording: "From Other Than Behind", which he
> says verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF
> THE KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind"
> remarks).
>
> A CT-kook wants to jump on this Humes' statement as something odd or
> "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks here in
> the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring up all
> the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and evidence that
> surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders.
>
> It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters.
>
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run. The coward snips, and having snipped - runs on.
In article <1151702406.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired
>> from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
>
>I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from
>heaven.
And yet, you'll still deny that the prosectors knew that the wound was in the
BACK of the head.
>However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt.
>testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark
>was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a
>misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE
>THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).
Feel free to quote it.
>Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks there might very well have meant
>to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN (and he probably DID
>mean just that, the more I ponder his somewhat-convoluted
>statement....because of the wording: "From Other Than Behind", which he
>says verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF
>THE KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind"
>remarks).
Yep... everyone knows that JFK turned and was looking back at the TSDB. That's
what was reported...
>A CT-kook wants to jump on this Humes' statement as something odd or
>"conspiratorial" I guess.
Nope. His statement was merely one out of dozens of others. I refer to it
because you tried asserting that the prosectors can't be used to show a wound on
the *BACK* of the head.
David VP
it's obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he
was referring SOLELY to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was
hit in the back of the head "From Behind".
Paint Humes as a liar if you please (and you do)....it's typical
CT-ism. But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From
Behind" comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
once. .....
"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from
other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
He obviously CANNOT mean that a bullet has ENTERED the back of JFK's
head AND EXITED from the same place.
With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's car).
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>The more I ponder Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage, it's
>obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he was
>referring SOLELY to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was hit
>in the back of the head "From Behind".
>
>Paint Humes as a liar if you please (and you do)....it's typical
>CT-ism. But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From
>Behind" comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for
>once.
>
>other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."
>
>head AND EXITED from the same place.
He didn't *say* that. He said that the bullet could not have exited from
*other* than behind. Not from the same point as the entry.
This illustrates the flaws of not having adversarial process more than any other
example I can think of.
>With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense
>(although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking
>here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's car).
Sounds like you're in the 'Tony' camp. "There was no exit hole in the back of
the head. The wound extends somewhat into the Occipital... No part of the
occipital can be described as *other* than the back of the head... There was no
large hole in the back of JFK's head."
Rather silly .. but most LNT'ers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".
David VP
OK, Ben, so WHICH one of Humes' "from behind" comments do you think he
was mistaken about (per your thinking that BOTH comments are not
referring solely to the location of the assassin)?
Because he's GOTTA be simply "mistaken", therefore, about one of the
two "from other than behind" comments....because both can't be right
(per your reasoning).
Or was Humes just talking gobbledy-gook?
David VP
Certain CT-kooks gag on the word "somewhat", too.
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >>> "He {J.D. Tippit} may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination too. His actions speak volumes." <<<
> >
> >
> > "His actions speak volumes"???????
> >
> > Un-be-lievable!
> >
> Then explain why he waits at The Viaduct where cars from Dealey Plaza
> are coming, and happens to honk at the house of one of the cars that
> crosses that Viaduct, that has the patsy, or accused assassin of the
> President of the U.S.A.? Thousands of houses in that neighborhood, and
> he picks that one! If he had miraculous powers of knowing
Miraculous that you know he was there when you don`t have one single
witness saying he was.
> who
> committed the act, or knew himself and wanted to get at him, why didn't
> he just go in the roominghouse and get him, or wait for him to come
> out? If Oswald couldn't get to the crime scene of the Tippit murder in
> time, how did he get to the Texas Theater so early when that would have
> been even a longer walk?
>
> What speaks volumes is these lackeys here, just going along with the
> program, refusing to ask any meaningful investigative questions.
You don`t ask meaningful questions. You ignore the meaningful
information, and give weight to evidence that doesn`t exist.
> > Typical CT Kook-ism. Tippit is out on the Dallas streets DOING EXACTLY
> > WHAT HE IS TOLD TO DO (to cover the general Oak Cliff area due to other
> > cars being diverted to DP), and yet his "actions speak volumes" in
> > favor of Tippit's own involvement in the assassination plot (per CT
> > kooks/nuts)!
> >
> By the conspirators? More likely, yes.
>
> > UNBELIEVABLE! As well as being a shockingly-stupid and despicable
> > assertion/allegation!
> >
> Wow, this one wants on stage during Academy time.
>
> > It's bad enough that CT Kooks/Morons try to take the noose from around
> > killer Lee Oswald's neck with respect to Tippit's murder -- but some
> > CTers then decide they'll take the Tippit thing to the next level of
> > unsupportable absurdity -- being the "Let's Have Tippit Actually Be The
> > 'Badge Man' Shooter On The Knoll!" hunk of garbage.
> >
> Can you absolutely be sure that he wasn't?
Can you be absolutely positive that JFK didn`t arrange to have
himself murdered?
> > Somebody decides they'll paint in a little "badge" on some shadows and
> > grain noise within a dot-sized area of an already-crappy Mary Moorman
> > Polaroid photo, and the next (il)logical step for the CT Kook Brigade
> > is to have the slain policeman in the case turn into this "Knoll
> > Killer".
> >
> Maybe they should have looked at Tippit's hands to see if they were
> dirty too, huh?
Maybe you should have someboidy pop open the hood and check you
brain.
> > Or, short of being Badge Man, the next best Kook theory re. Tippit is
> > to have him being "assigned" to rub out the Patsy (Oswald) after JFK's
> > murder. And the evidence for this allegation is where again?? Anybody
> > know (other than a CT Kook)??
> >
> Doubtful, when he could have rubbed him out at the roominghouse, huh?
>
> > Answer -- The evidence for it rests NOWHERE at all. It's non-existent,
> > except in the CT Kook World of Make-Believe.
> >
> > Frankly, CTers spitting on the memory of a good officer like J.D.
> > Tippit disgusts me...greatly.
> >
> You have no personal knowledge of the man. Many think he was a most
> undesirable character, with his affairs on the job, and working in
> seedy places of mob figures.
<snicker> They`re all bad people. Just not Saint Oz.
> > J.D. Tippit has been treated like a criminal for absolutely no reason
> > other than conspiracists' whack-o theories, which have no evidence in
> > fact to back them up.
> >
>
> It's just another case of people willing to make a hero out of someone
> to make that a reason not to look at evidence. It's been around a long
> time. It's called The End Run.
It`s called kooks indulging in a sick hobby.
> > If ANYTHING will show up a true CT Kook for what he/she is (i.e., a
> > "True-Blue CT Kook") it is their oddball belief that J.D. Tippit was
> > somehow involved in the JFK assassination (other than by merely being
> > an innocent victim of bastard Oswald's murderous actions, that is).
> >
> > Another very good way to cut to the chase re. a CTer's specific status
> > (i.e., "Bona fide Kook" vs. "Non-kook but still a CTer") is to ask them
> > right off the bat: "Do you think Oswald killed Tippit?"
> >
> > If the answer you get is "No way" -- you know you're dealing with a
> > first-rate CT Kook (without doubt). Because there's NOTHING more
> > certain in the whole JFK case than Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
> > 11-year Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Many who wrote on the case in
> the sixties thought he was involved. Many will continue to do so.
Kooks will blather.
> CJ
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > Bud wrote:
> > > > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > > > cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > > > > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> > > > > where debates are of primary focus?
> > > >
> > > > This isn`t primarily a debate forum. It`s a special intrerest
> > > > forum. In it`s purest form, it would be like-minded individuals
> > > > engaged in discussions pertaining to thier shared hobby. In it`s
> > > > present incarnation, it`s kooks bathering thier unsupportable drivel,
> > > > punctuated by brief interludes of interjected reason by LN.
> > > >
> > > It only becomes a non-debate, or discussion forum when gov't agents or
> > > trolls like yourself find a definition to pester themselves with
> > > endless taunts and drivel. That's why people eventually distances
> > > themselves away.
> >
> > Lets hope thats true.
> >
> Oh the track record is in tact. Have Parasite Will Travel.
Don`t leave home without it.
> > > > > > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > > > > > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > > > > > common , mundane answer to these things ?
> > > > >
> > > > > And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> > > > > to refuse to debate?
> > > >
> > > > Endlessly? There is an LN response to almost everything kooks bather
> > > > about. Like tomnln asking me about numbers in Ruby`s notebooks.
> > > > Information indicating non-sinister conclusions exists in the record.
> > > > Why do LN need to keep countering the same CT drivel?
> > > >
> > > Because they don't care about the case or what's in Ruby's notebook, or
> > > whether Oswald used to work at the Carousel, or whether Oswald showed
> > > up at Ruby's house the night before the assassination, or whether Ruby
> > > handed Oswald a revolver after the shooting, or whether Ruby was
> > > ordered to silence Oswald, or whether was instrumental in organizing
> > > the assassination itself.
> >
> > I suppose you should be condemned to running around in circles
> > with this nonsense. You will certainly never be able to establish the
> > least bit of it, or take it to any meaningful conclusion.
> >
> It's been established, but the conclusions which may be obvious to some
> are just too painful for others.
No, it hasn`t been established, and you can`t tell that it hasn`t.
> > > They just don't care, and all they want to
> > > do is dismantle anybody who has a drive to ask the questions and get
> > > answers.
> >
> > Asking questions isn`t progress.
> >
> Of course when Oswald is dead. No question is a good question.
I`d like to ask him if it hurt when Ruby shot him. Looked like it
did.
> > > They have their Oswald Handbook, and anything that goes
> > > against THAT goes against their kook power of reasoning.
> >
> > The "Oswald Handbook" is merely having the ability to view the
> > amazing and extraordinary claims, conjecture, scenarios you kooks make
> > in the context of your meager support and flimsy pretexts.
> >
> You just glance at the claims and get on your soapbox. Obviously,
> looking things up is not your forte.
The "things" aren`t the problem.
> > > > > You've somehow , in your
> > > > > > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > > > > > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > > > > > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
> > > > >
> > > > > Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. In the Bible
> > > > > 2. On the Playgrounds
> > > > > 3. At the kitchen table
> > > > > 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> > > > > 5. All of the above
> > > > > 6. Add your own.
> > > >
> > > > Accurate labeling is important. It helps keep things in the proper
> > > > perspective.
> > > >
> > > Kook! Like that?!
> >
> > Just like that.
> >
> Better yet, if it suits you, it fits you well.
Yah, what kind of kook would think that just because all those
people selected Oz as the person they saw kill Tippit, or run from the
scene, that that might mean they actually saw the person they said they
had, doing the things they said they saw him do.
> > > > > > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > > > > > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > > > > > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > > > > > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > > > > > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> > > > > 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> > > > > be brought to trial to have closure?
> > > >
> > > > We don`t. Ruby killing the sole murderer of both Tippit and JFK
> > > > closed the matter in every important way. Kooks keep the matter alive
> > > > in very unimportant ways.
> > > >
> > > Of course. The investigation can be curtailed and controlled then. If
> > > anything pops up, then Bud and the cabalists will shoot it down.
> >
> > You don`t really think that the kook chatter here is important in
> > any real way, do you?
> >
> Well, maybe not to solve the case, but to put in people's minds that
> many people will use any leverage to get their way in this country
> might be a deterrant for future sheanigans.
But you folks are inept and useless. Your incompetence can only tend
to encourage these kinds of "sheanigans".
> > > > > LHO was not even proved guilty by
> > > > > trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> > > > > 'fingered' over the years.
> > > >
> > > > And you regard that information in the exact opposite way you
> > > > should. Hundreds of leads that go nowhere bolster the LN position. All
> > > > that smoke does is prove that kooks have been busy lighting fires.
> > > >
> > > They go plenty of places,
> >
> > Nowhere.
> >
> Bud The Quasher, yes! Bud the thinker, the investigator, nyet!
You`d rather read into the evidence than read the evidence.
> > > but the kooks always have a one liner. It's
> > > their only 'catharsis' for the vermin they have become.
> >
> > <snicker>
> >
> Kooks have low entertainment levels, folks.
You do not. You never cease to amaze.
> > > > > By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> > > > > time of the shooting?
> > > >
> > > > You may not be able to understand this, Curt, but Tippit was the
> > > > victim.
> > > >
> > > He may have been, but he may have been involved in the assassination
> > > too.
> >
> > In forty-plus years you can`t establish such a thing, and never
> > will. Just like you won`t be able to show that Ruby killed LHO for any
> > reasons but his own personal ones. You whack-jobs are left scratching
> > at Tippit`s car window being up or the fact that he fell on his gun to
> > support your crackpoy ideas, because this is all you can muster.
> >
> That's just it.
I know it is.
> His own personal reasons are obviously NOT the case,
> but you have to swallow. Tippit just doesn't choose some house out of
> thousands in the neighborhood to just give a friendly honk.
Who said they saw Tippit at Oz`s boardinghouse?
> To you, he
> must have had a hand slip off the wheel, or been in his regularly
> assigned territory. Anything, but him maybe just being on the payroll
> to be a currrier, or a warner...something to do with the case.
After 40-plus years you`ve got in narrowed down to "something"?
Good work!
> > > His actions speak volumes,
> >
> > No, kooks read volumes into his actions.
> >
> We, read the evidence and ask any question like any detective,
Any detective that barks up the trees you do is in the wrong
profession.
> and
> build a case.
You will never build a case. You can only chase your tail.
> You already have a case, and have nothing to do better
> in life to serve your ego by 'thinking you have superiour thinking
> abilities' (SirSlick).
I`m not here for my ego,. I perform a public service.
> You need to do other things to make your life
> have real self worth.
Well, it not like finding a cure for cancer, but kook-bashing might
do some good. Perhaps it will stop being cool to blurt out the stupiest
shit and be considered sagely and wise.
tomnln
Is that why you never address the FBI withholding evidence from the WC?
Do you Condone those Felonies?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151715660....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run... Coward to the very end, right; Davey-boy?
In article <1151715479.3...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> He didn't *say* that. He said that the bullet could not have exited from
>> *other* than behind. Not from the same point as the entry.
>
>OK, Ben,
So you admit that Humes DID NOT SAY what you asserted... good.
My job is done.
Ben Holmes
The coward snips, and having snipped, moves on...
In article <1151715660....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Most LNT'ers simply gag when it comes to saying "occipital".
>
>Certain CT-kooks gag on the word "somewhat", too.
What you refuse to deal with - is that the wound could have been just *ONE
MILLIMETER* into the occipital, and it would *PROVABLY* be a wound in the back
of the head.
For that matter, it can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, and be in the back of the
head.
David VP
>>> "His {Dr. Humes} statement was merely one out of dozens of others. ....He {Humes} said that the bullet could not have exited from OTHER than behind." <<<
DVP now responds:
So, Ben, was Dr. Humes lying, or merely mistaken, or is he just
flat-out out stupid when he claimed in the same breath that the bullet
that ENTERED Kennedy's head could not possibly have been fired from a
location other than from BEHIND the President, and then a second later
claimed that the bullet had to have exited "from behind" as well?*
* = Which is an "Other Than Behind" statement that CT-kooks take to
mean "exited the back of JFK's skull" -- which, of course, Humes did
NOT mean there, quite obviously, based on the first portion of his
"other than behind" testimony. Humes was talking only about the
direction from which the bullet had to have come in order to have
achieved the exit wound that was observed on JFK's head -- i.e., the
bullet that caused the exit wound in JFK's skull had to have come "FROM
BEHIND" the President.
So....which is it, Ben?
Was Humes an honest man, trying to tell the truth to the WC in '64? Or
was he a lying SOB who was "in" on a cover-up operation from Day 1?
You seem to want Humes to be BOTH of the above things.
On one hand, per CT-kooks, Humes is a lying mother-fucker, who told
numerous lies to the Warren Commission (et al) and who deliberately
faked the autopsy report.
But on the other hand, Ben and other assorted kooks treat Humes as a
"teller of the truth" when it comes to the rather ambiguous-sounding
"from behind"/"from behind" double statement made by Humes. Ben seems
to think that Humes is telling the TRUTH in this one rare instance
(when it suits his pro-conspiracy needs, of course...and only then).
You can't have it both ways, Benji. Humes is either a fraud and a cheat
or he isn't. Which do you want to choose (this time)?
Ben-Kook also said this in a prior posting:
>>> "They {including James Humes} followed orders." <<<
Evidently not well enough for Ben, however. Otherwise that sneaky
double "From Behind" thing would never have escaped Humes' lips.
Ben-Kook also said this in a prior posting:
>>> "You can't believe what the autopsy doctors DID say." <<<
But, evidently, Ben-boy CAN pick and choose what to believe and
disbelieve re. Humes' statements (i.e., what the kooks perceive as
being the real Humes truth vs. what are merely conspiratorial lies on
Humes' part). In the "from behind" example, Ben wants to "believe" what
Humes said (adding in his own pro-CT spin concerning the statement, of
course).
In that one instance, Doctor Humes is a truth-teller. All other times
-- he's a rotten scumbag of a liar, bent on subverting the true facts
re. JFK's wounds.
This kind of double-standard thinking by CT-kooks shows their true
desires and intentions -- i.e., make everything look as shady and
suspicious as possible and maybe some of this will stick in people's
minds as the truth.
It's the "Throw Spaghetti At The Wall" kind of logic. Typical for
CTers, I must say. Sad, but typical.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
Why can't you respond without snipping all relevant material, Davey-boy?
In article <1151876374.7...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>Ben-Kook said earlier:
>
>>>>"His {Dr. Humes} statement was merely one out of dozens of others. ....He
>>>>{Humes} said that the bullet could not have exited from OTHER than behind." <<<
>
>DVP responds:
>
>So, Ben, was Dr. Humes lying, or merely mistaken, or is he just
>flat-out out stupid (when he claimed in the same breath that the bullet
>that ENTERED Kennedy's head could not possibly have been fired from a
>location other than from BEHIND the President and then a second later
>claimed that the bullet had to have exited from "other than behind" as
>well {which CT-kooks take to mean "exited JFK's head"...which, of
>course, Humes did NOT mean, quite obviously...he was talking NOT about
>KENNEDY'S HEAD in that statement....he was ONLY talking about the
>direction from which the bullet had to have come from..."FROM
>BEHIND"})?
>
>So....which is it, Ben?
>
>Was Humes an honest man, trying to tell the truth to the WC in '64? Or
>was he a lying SOB who was "in" on a cover-up operation from Day 1?
>
>You seem to want Humes to be BOTH of the above things.
>
>On one hand, per CT-kooks, Humes is a lying mother-fucker, who told
>numerous lies to the Warren Commission (et al) and who deliberately
>faked the autopsy report.
>
>But on the other hand, Ben and other assorted kooks treat Humes as a
>"teller of the truth" when it comes to the rather ambiguous-sounding
>"from behind"/"from behind" double statement made by Humes. Ben seems
>to think that Humes is telling the TRUTH in this one rare instance
>(when it suits his pro-conspiracy needs, of course...and only then).
>
>You can't have it both ways, Benji. Humes is either a fraud and a cheat
>or he isn't. Which do you want to choose (this time)?
>
>
>Ben-kook also said this in a prior posting:
>
>>>> "They {including James Humes} followed orders." <<<
>
>Evidently not well enough for Ben-kook. Otherwise that sneaky double
>"From Behind" thing would never have escaped Humes' lips.
>
>
>Ben-kook also said this in a prior posting:
>
>>>> "You can't believe what the autopsy doctors DID say." <<<
>
>But, evidently, Ben The Kookster CAN pick and choose what to believe
>and disbelieve re. Humes' statements. In the "from behind" example, Ben
David VP
So, was Humes a liar or a truth-teller? Which do you want to choose
(today)?
David VP
green-covered Earth Dr. J.J. Humes would have had any reason at all to
tell ANYBODY (let alone the WC people during his testimony) that he
burned some of the original autopsy materials in the fireplace at his
home on 11/24/63?
If Humes' sole mission was to "Cover Up" stuff and to play a large role
in this widespread "JFK Conspiracy", would he have actually ADMITTED to
BURNING HIS NOTES IN HIS FIREPLACE -- IN FRONT OF THE WC??!!
That's just.....nutty.
CT kooks love to use the "burned notes" thing as a sign of conspiracy
and cover-up in this case...but those same CTers never seem to wonder
WHY in hell Humes ever admitted to doing that when he so obviously
didn't have to.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Nice retort, Ben-Idiot....Now WHO'S "snipping" and "running"??
Ad Hominem... Not I. You've *again* snipped everything.
>So, was Humes a liar or a truth-teller? Which do you want to choose
>(today)?
What statement of Humes do you wish to apply my truth-telling intelligence to?
Ben Holmes
You'll have to quote me accurately for any response. Go back and *quote* the
post, not what you think I said.
In article <1151877301.1...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
David VP
Oh, I don't know....maybe the one I've been friggin' talking about for
two or three days now!!!
Or...just take your pick...you will anyway.
(What a kook.)
(Are there pills you can take???)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> What statement of Humes do you wish to apply my truth-telling intelligence
>> to?
>
>Oh, I don't know....maybe the one I've been friggin' talking about for
>two or three days now!!!
>
>Or...just take your pick...you will anyway.
Then perhaps you should leave my posts intact, so that I *can* reply to it
without bothering to go back and pull stuff back into the post that you've
snipped out.
>(What a kook.)
>(Are there pills you can take???)
Ad hominem won't get you anywhere, Davey-boy.
David VP
Ben "Bullshitter" Holmes is a CT fraud. (On top of his number-one
occupation as a rabid CT-Kook.)
David VP
bed.
David VP
Will my Yoda imitation gain me any points though?? .....
"Let the CT Force flowwwww through you, young man...yessssss! Great
conspirator Ben-Kook seeks. Files! He seeks Fiiiiiiiiiles (of the James
variety)!!"
BTW, I can boogie-down too. Will that get me anywhere? .....
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/images/smilies/dance.gif
Anthony Marsh
> ....And while Ben's at it, perhaps he can tell the world WHY on God's
> green-covered Earth Dr. J.J. Humes would have had any reason at all to
> tell ANYBODY (let alone the WC people during his testimony) that he
> burned some of the original autopsy materials in the fireplace at his
> home on 11/24/63?
You seem to think that this was something that conspiracy writers forced
out of Humes. You forget that Humes was military and following orders.
It was Burkley, a superior officer, who ordered Humes to admit that he
had burned the notes.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md9/html/Image1.htm
>
> If Humes' sole mission was to "Cover Up" stuff and to play a large role
> in this widespread "JFK Conspiracy", would he have actually ADMITTED to
> BURNING HIS NOTES IN HIS FIREPLACE -- IN FRONT OF THE WC??!!
>
Because the WC already knew about it. As an astute lawyer you don't ask
a question without knowing what the answer will be.
aeffects
apparent you've no argument at ALL -- just snip, run and bullshit.
I count myself in good company around here, whether I agree with Robert
Harris regarding his take on the Z-film or Ben Holmes, whom I suspect
forgot more about autopsy procedures than you'll ever understand.
All you have is daBug and a book that has been coming out for years
(and yet to arrive) not to mention the wuzzes hiding out at .john's
house of disinformation...
So truck on champ, I await more of your declared wisdom...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>My-oh-my -- when you get around to this "cozy CT" stuff, it becomes
>apparent you've no argument at ALL -- just snip, run and bullshit.
>
>I count myself in good company around here, whether I agree with Robert
>Harris regarding his take on the Z-film or Ben Holmes, whom I suspect
>forgot more about autopsy procedures than you'll ever understand.
Actually, I'd certainly defer to Aguilar, or others with medical training. But
I *do* think that the medical evidence is the most powerful when it comes to
proving a coverup and conspiracy.
David VP
A citation proving this claim would be nice.
And, even if true, that means Humes absolutely, positively HAD to
follow this "order", right?
You're crazy. And confused. One minute the CT-Kooks have Humes fully
willing to commit perjury when he lied numerous times under oath. And
the next minute the kooks think that Humes would be willing to tell the
absolute truth (re. the notes' bonfire).
To remain the slightest bit consistent here, CT-Kooks must also think
that Dr. Burkley, therefore, ORDERED Humes to tell all those lies to
the WC too...right?
Let's see some proof of that silly claim please.
>>> "Because the WC already knew about it {Humes' note-burning incident}. As an astute lawyer you don't ask a question without knowing what the answer will be." <<<
And just exactly how does this mean that Humes still HAD to cough up
that vital information to the WC? If Humes was the rotten lying bastard
most/many CTers think he is/was, he wouldn't have hesitated for a
minute to turn into a "hostile witness" (similar to his
hilariously-hostile and "get the hell off my back!" type of testimony
he gave to the ARRB in '96) and tell one more lie to add to his
ever-growing laundry list of untruths he spouted to the WC. Right?
Also -- HOW do you think the WC came about this knowledge of the Humes'
note-burning in the first place if HUMES HIMSELF hadn't told SOMEBODY
about it after it occurred?
And, again, there's no way he was FORCED to tell anybody in the first
place about the note-burning episode.
Full circle we've come. Yessss.
~End Yoda~
David VP
Wuzzes?? Are they fuzzy wuzzies too??
I'll stack Mr. Bugliosi's intellect, common sense, truth-telling,
reasoning, and fact-finding ability against anyone else's on planet
Earth. Which is why I have no hesitation whatsoever to jump on the
VB/Final Verdict pre-book release bandwagon in a heartbeat. Glad to be
on board in fact. As will anyone with a lick of integrity and common
sense themselves when his book trashes every CT known to man in 2007.
Happy CT hunting while you can though.
(I've always thought that Peter Lawford and Frank Sinatra should have
been considered "suspects" in some CTers' eyes at some point over the
years. Maybe a CT-Kook can get to work on that "Hollywood" angle of the
conspiracy before VB's book ends all CTs forever. There's no real
motive for Pete or Frankie to have wanted to kill JFK, but that never
stopped a good theory from being placed on the stoop....has it now?
After all, Sinatra had "mob" connections. That, right there, should
make a good JFK theory. Or maybe that theory is in the "Kook Table Of
CT Contents" already. Could be. Everything else is.)
cdddraftsman
might hurt yourself . Tom Lowry
Phil Ossofee wrote:
> Von Scum said" so-called BOH wound that cter's insist was there, but of
> course never existed in the first place" Von Pein, Reitzes whoever the
> hell you are, you are one lying sack of shit. All the medical personnel
> said the back of the head had a large hole in it.
Ben Holmes
says...
Yes Phil... how *dare* you use "BOH" in a post directed at a LNT'er... you
*know* how that riles 'em up.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "All you have is daBug {AKA: THE PERSON WHO WILL DEMOLISH ALL CTs FOREVER} and a book that has been coming out for years (and yet to arrive) not to mention the wuzzes hiding out at .john's house of disinformation." <<<
>
> Wuzzes?? Are they fuzzy wuzzies too??
>
> I'll stack Mr. Bugliosi's intellect, common sense, truth-telling,
> reasoning, and fact-finding ability against anyone else's on planet
> Earth. Which is why I have no hesitation whatsoever to jump on the
> VB/Final Verdict pre-book release bandwagon in a heartbeat. Glad to be
> on board in fact. As will anyone with a lick of integrity and common
> sense themselves when his book trashes every CT known to man in 2007.
On board for what? We've heard nothing but noise about daBug's "book"
[known now as 2 volumes] for years....
> Happy CT hunting while you can though.
>
> (I've always thought that Peter Lawford and Frank Sinatra should have
> been considered "suspects" in some CTers' eyes at some point over the
> years. Maybe a CT-Kook can get to work on that "Hollywood" angle of the
> conspiracy before VB's book ends all CTs forever. There's no real
> motive for Pete or Frankie to have wanted to kill JFK, but that never
> stopped a good theory from being placed on the stoop....has it now?
> After all, Sinatra had "mob" connections. That, right there, should
> make a good JFK theory. Or maybe that theory is in the "Kook Table Of
> CT Contents" already. Could be. Everything else is.)
LMAO, your Lone Neuter fantazizing won't make it in Hollyweird, VP.
Bug's credibility and LA connections may get a meeting there though. I
can just hear it now; "the Bug's rights have been purchased, the
project is in development...", thats shorthand for, seeya in 10 years,
if THEN -- So, I'd be banging on the 6th Floor Museum door [they have
entree to the History Channel folks], Vince may have another THEORY the
History Channel could buy into...roflmao!
cdddraftsman
jfk are you ? By the way , it's up to
63 different assassins now that the gullible
American mobocracy has swallowed as horse manuer , in their quest
to exonerate that RED ROMEO , LHO
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > Ben , debating is boring , don't be boorish . Your questions that led
>
> Then I must question why one is attending a portion of the internet
> where debates are of primary focus?
>
>
> > to this exchange where fit for the sixties and seventies , but don't
> > you think it's time to move on and stop acting like their isn't , very
> > common , mundane answer to these things ?
>
> And the common and mundane must include your scenarios which you seem
> to refuse to debate?
>
> You've somehow , in your
> > mind , weaved all these disperate mini-stories into a conspiracy plot ,
> > thru the use of the most lurid deductive capability's , is suggestive
> > of a nurological problem , on your part ? It certainly isn't
>
> Name calling in trying to 'lessen' the worth of the tauntee is common
>
> 1. In the Bible
> 2. On the Playgrounds
> 3. At the kitchen table
> 4. Anyone selling their soul to climb the social ladder
> 5. All of the above
> 6. Add your own.
>
> > geo-physical , since no one except LHO has been fingered . You could
> > also improve your mindset/mentality , by exploring the ' Paranoid
> > Mentality ' aspect , of what you preach and exhibit , it would be more
> > fruitful then trying to capture non-existent assassins . Tom Lowry
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> Oh yes, the fickle finger of fate was an award that was bestowed on
> 'The Laugh In'. Why is it the mentality of the LNT that a person must
> be brought to trial to have closure? LHO was not even proved guilty by
> trial, and there are probably 30-50 who have 'confessed' or have been
> 'fingered' over the years. By the way, where was J.D. Tippit at the
> time of the shooting?
>
> CJ
>
> > > Isn't there *any* LNT'ers who are willing to debate the *evidence*???
> > >
> > >
> > > In article <1151317117.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > >Hit it right on the nose , put 2 dollars down on ben's horse , Ah sh--t
> > > >put 5 dollars down on shakey knees in the fifth . TL
> > > >Bud wrote:
> > > >> cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > >> > Its been my utter misfortune to have run afoul of that up to the minute
> > > >> > , virtuoso of venum , the crack conspiracy quack , the newest high
> > > >> > priest of mumbo jumbo , Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes .
> > > >>
> > > >> Look where you`re at. You can`t go to the beach and be surprised to
> > > >> find sand.
> > > >>
> > > >> > If he'd spend half of
> > > >> > his misbegotten time tracking down all those disappearing assassins ,
> > > >> > as he spends here , conjuring up more falsehoods , than PF, AM and RH
> > > >> > all combined , you would of thought by now , he would have lassoed all
> > > >> > the assassin's in his big JFK rodeo . But at last this doesn't seem to
> > > >> > be the case . Should we tempt him to push his feeble mind a bit further
> > > >> > , further than any CTer has gone before . There are big risks here
> > > >> > involved . He could have a total meltdown , blow a fuse , become top
> > > >> > heavy , be committed to the nearest jfk assassination rehab clinic . If
> > > >> > he finds out , his sacred cow was actually held together by spit ,
> > > >> > bubble gum and ceiling wax , whew , watch out , get out of the way , as
> > > >> > his two thousand conspiracy books , go flying into the fire !
> > > >>
> > > >> That`s why Ben will never run out of material. He has the efforts of
> > > >> a thousand paranoid chimps at a thousand typewriters at his disposal.
> > > >> Hundreds of thousands of hours of effort to undermine and attack the
> > > >> official version, in order to nullify it, so it can be replaced by some
> > > >> of the worst thinking ever displayed.
> > > >>
> > > >> > Naa ,
> > > >> > on second thought he's harmless enough with what he's doing , if it
> > > >> > weren't for the fact his seditious behavior and traiterous writings
> > > >> > and treasinous talk , weren't effecting a new generation , of brainless
> > > >> > non thinkers , such as himself . That's right Ben , your stuck with
> > > >> > your average American 8th grade learning skills
> > > >>
> > > >> That hit a little too close to home.
> > > >>
> > > >> > , I'll bet you get that
> > > >> > warm and cozy feeling , knowing your surrrounded by that , what did you
> > > >> > say , 90% of Americans
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh, he`ll say 90%. He just can`t support it.
> > > >>
> > > >> > , who have lost their critical thinking skills ?
> > > >> > It's funny but I don't feel embarrassed at all , being right has it's
> > > >> > costs and it does occaisionally get lonely here at the top . But it's
> > > >> > a small price to pay , to not be a dunce , lackey and quisling such as
> > > >> > your self . Barring all else , I shall send him a coupon , redeemable
> > > >> > at ' Lobotomy's R us ' , to be screened for ' shallow gene pool ' .
> > > >> > We've got to get to the bottom of why certain feeble minded people ,
> > > >> > believe in strange things . Tom Lowry
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, the real reason I responded to this is to predict Ben`s
> > > >> response. Since he (says he) has me plonked, he shouldn`t see this. I
> > > >> just wonder how well I know the enemy, so here goes. Ben will allude to
> > > >> all the other LNs who have run back to the moderated forum. He`ll claim
> > > >> Tom is a coward who won`t address his carefully selected kook talking
> > > >> points. And he won`t fail to include that LN indulge in attacks because
> > > >> they are afraid to talk about the evidence. C`mon Ben, be your
> > > >> predictable self, I hate to be proven wrong.
> > > >
curtj...@webtv.net
> >> "Can you absolutely be sure that he {Tippit} wasn't {the BM shooter, per CT Kooks}?"
>
> Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.
>
No, you don't have to go quite that far, but you do have to ignore that
there was a 'badgeman' there, 'directing' where there were numerous who
stated there were shots and smoke etc. from there.
> And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
> certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
> don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
> deeds. Please.
>
"The weight"? He arrived at the GLOCO, circa, 12:45. Where did he
come from?
> There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
> JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
> (It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
> they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
> it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
> else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
> drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
> skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
> It's obvious.)
>
Many Dallas police hung around Ruby's establishment and one was Tippit.
Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood, that just happens
to be of the alleged assassin. He would have no ordinary powers to
know the was a potential assassin. He honks the horn and drives around
the corner very slowly. Oswald is seen in the theater minutes later.
He still has his bus transfer. Of course Tippit is not a suspect, you
are LLNT.
> There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
> free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.
>
Just a smear tactic to avoid the evidence.
> Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
> a gun too?
>
Want to prove that Jack Lawrence was never in Dealey Plaza, and was at
work all day on Nov, 22, 1963?
> MPAA -- You listening here??
>
> I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.
Says a lot when they do get paid. Maybe the country ain't worth
savin'.
CJ
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >> "Can you absolutely be sure that he {Tippit} wasn't {the BM shooter, per CT Kooks}?"
> >
> > Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.
> >
> No, you don't have to go quite that far, but you do have to ignore that
> there was a 'badgeman' there, 'directing' where there were numerous who
> stated there were shots and smoke etc. from there.
Smoke and mirrors and blurry photos. More than enough to get kook
creative juices flowing.
> > And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
> > certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
> > don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
> > deeds. Please.
> >
> "The weight"? He arrived at the GLOCO, circa, 12:45. Where did he
> come from?
You`re right, he does seem to need an alibi against the mass of
evidence you`ve compliled against him. <snicker>
> > There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
> > JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
> > (It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
> > they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
> > it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
> > else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
> > drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
> > skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
> > It's obvious.)
> >
> Many Dallas police hung around Ruby's establishment and one was Tippit.
Bullshit. Tippit was a family man who worked two-three jobs.
> Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood, that just happens
> to be of the alleged assassin.
He did? Who was it that said they saw him there again?
> He would have no ordinary powers to
> know the was a potential assassin. He honks the horn and drives around
> the corner very slowly. Oswald is seen in the theater minutes later.
Yah, sneaking in to avoid capture for the murder he committed.
> He still has his bus transfer. Of course Tippit is not a suspect, you
> are LLNT.
And you are N-U-T-S.
> > There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
> > free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.
> >
> Just a smear tactic to avoid the evidence.
No, smearing would be an accurate word to describe your efforts
against Tippit`s memory.
> > Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
> > a gun too?
> >
> Want to prove that Jack Lawrence was never in Dealey Plaza, and was at
> work all day on Nov, 22, 1963?
Everybody needs an alibi except for the person who many people said
they saw shoot Tippit.
> > MPAA -- You listening here??
> >
> > I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.
>
> Says a lot when they do get paid. Maybe the country ain't worth
> savin'.
I dispair for the kooks. Maybe my efforts are wasted, perhaps you
are too far gone to reach. Oh, well, I`ll just ridicule you for fun,
then, with no expectations that the absurdity of your position will
occur to you.
> CJ
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> My-oh-my -- when you get around to this "cozy CT" stuff, it becomes
> apparent you've no argument at ALL -- just snip, run and bullshit.
They used to say that about Ali, too. That all he would do is run,
jab, and run his mouth. He did alright for himself, though.
> I count myself in good company around here, whether I agree with Robert
> Harris regarding his take on the Z-film or Ben Holmes,
Not to mention Tomnln, Charles Wallace, Curt Jester and Sam. If that
group doesn`t get the "Woody Woodpecker" laugh going in your head, what
can?
> whom I suspect
> forgot more about autopsy procedures than you'll ever understand.
Ben should look into a procedure to have your head removed from his
ass.
> All you have is daBug and a book that has been coming out for years
> (and yet to arrive) not to mention the wuzzes hiding out at .john's
> house of disinformation...
>
> So truck on champ, I await more of your declared wisdom...
Wasted on kooks, as will be Bug`s book. Maybe his next book will
try to persuade the moon kooks that we landed on the moon.
David VP
So?
The mere fact it's coming AT ALL is enough for me.....and enough to
know the CTs haven't a wobbly leg to stand once it is published.
~MARK VII~
David VP
How nice it must be to be a CT-Kook --- no need to stick to any of the
known evidence....no need to use any common sense....just make stuff up
out of The Twilight Zone or via your own fertile imaginations....making
theories up from whole cloth, in fact, seems to be ENCOURAGED within
the CT-Kook Society! Remarkable!
Okay, please tell the world HOW you know that Tippit honked his horn in
front of 1026 Beckley on Nov. 22nd. The proof of that activity would be
very nice to see. Tippit told you personally just before he was shot to
death, is that it??? (A great book deal awaits there.)
~~LIGHT BULB GOES OFF IN HEAD~~
I got it now!! Earlene Roberts' WC testimony has been misinterpreted!
When she said this.....
"Yes--it {a police car} stopped directly in front of my house and it
just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely
would do when they stopped, and I went to the door and looked and saw
it wasn't their number." .....
.....What she REALLY was saying (in code, with the "tip-tip" remark)
was: "Officer Tip-pit" was in that car".
Yep...that solves that mystery.
Next hunk of silliness please.....
>>> "Want to prove that Jack Lawrence was never in Dealey Plaza, and was at work all day on Nov, 22, 1963?" <<<
Thanks. You didn't disappoint.
My dad can't prove he was at work all day on 11/22/63 either. That
certainly must make him a suspect too.
BTW -- Since when was Officer Tippit driving patrol car number "106"
(per Earlene Roberts' account) on 11/22? Or did she just put the "6" on
the end of Tippit's "10" to throw off the WC hounds?
David VP
Prob'ly not...seeing as how it's filled with a large % of CT-nutjobs
who couldn't give a damn about allowing a double-murderer walk free,
and who also feel the need to implicate one of the real killer's murder
victims in the crime.
Maybe in the next world beyond, "up to 90%" (per Ben-Kook) of its
citizens will have more integrity (and common sense).
Anybody wanna go?
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood that just happens to be of the alleged assassin. He honks the horn and drives around the corner very slowly." <<<
>
>
> How nice it must be to be a CT-Kook --- no need to stick to any of the
> known evidence....no need to use any common sense....just make stuff up
> out of The Twilight Zone or via your own fertile imaginations....making
> theories up from whole cloth, in fact, seems to be ENCOURAGED within
remarkable, fertile imagination? -- Hell, you stand behind a book
[daBug's] not even published yet, how naive and dumb is THAT? roflmfao!
aeffects
Moon kooks? You got the wrong board champ. Forget where you are, again?
Sounds right up daBug's alley though...
David VP
It's probably the most sane thing I've ever done in my life. And you'll
see why. Eventually.
curtj...@webtv.net
> curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > David VP wrote:
> > > >> "Can you absolutely be sure that he {Tippit} wasn't {the BM shooter, per CT Kooks}?"
> > >
> > > Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.
> > >
> > No, you don't have to go quite that far, but you do have to ignore that
> > there was a 'badgeman' there, 'directing' where there were numerous who
> > stated there were shots and smoke etc. from there.
>
> Smoke and mirrors and blurry photos. More than enough to get kook
> creative juices flowing.
>
Officer Joe M. Smith goes back there in person and sees a badge, and
sees the dirty hands and nails like a car mechanic, and Malcolm Summers
sees a coat with a rifle underneath, a badge, and the dirty hands.
> > > And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
> > > certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
> > > don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
> > > deeds. Please.
> > >
> > "The weight"? He arrived at the GLOCO, circa, 12:45. Where did he
> > come from?
>
> You`re right, he does seem to need an alibi against the mass of
> evidence you`ve compliled against him. <snicker>
>
Alibi? He is acting like no other police officer on the force. Nobody
is stopping cars like that in Dealey Plaza. Nobody is flying in and
pushing people out of the way in a store. Nobody is honking their
horns in front of houses with assassins inside.
> > > There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
> > > JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
> > > (It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
> > > they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
> > > it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
> > > else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
> > > drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
> > > skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
> > > It's obvious.)
> > >
> > Many Dallas police hung around Ruby's establishment and one was Tippit.
>
> Bullshit. Tippit was a family man who worked two-three jobs.
>
Lots of 'family men' of Dallas' Finest were known to establish The
Carousel. Drinks were generally on the house for them. Who cared as
an owner when it was a front for the Mob and prostitution where C Notes
were par for the course.
> > Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood, that just happens
> > to be of the alleged assassin.
>
> He did? Who was it that said they saw him there again?
>
He was in the neighborhood assigned. Nobody was assigned there and not
in twos. The vehicle was just missed by a number which two were
correct on the vehicle. The six and the 0 could have easily been seen
as each other. Everybody that could have been there, on duty, was
checked out, and they were accounted for. Kooks don't like that.
> > He would have no ordinary powers to
> > know the was a potential assassin. He honks the horn and drives around
> > the corner very slowly. Oswald is seen in the theater minutes later.
>
> Yah, sneaking in to avoid capture for the murder he committed.
>
No, probably dropped off by Tippit. The Record Store was only a block
and a half away. He by the best of timelines couldn't have walked to
the Tippit murder scene or the theater. He was seen in the theater by
two, almost a half hour before the arrest.
> > He still has his bus transfer. Of course Tippit is not a suspect, you
> > are LLNT.
>
> And you are N-U-T-S.
>
The L of LNT is for Lunatic, and I save the title for you, you
Macadamean Morsel.
> > > There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
> > > free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.
> > >
> > Just a smear tactic to avoid the evidence.
>
> No, smearing would be an accurate word to describe your efforts
> against Tippit`s memory.
>
The memory you try to give him, because you won't follow his actions.
> > > Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
> > > a gun too?
> > >
> > Want to prove that Jack Lawrence was never in Dealey Plaza, and was at
> > work all day on Nov, 22, 1963?
>
> Everybody needs an alibi except for the person who many people said
> they saw shoot Tippit.
>
The person who was scene in the Shoe Store window, and went into the
balcony, and got arrested there, needed an alibi, til the wrong one got
arrested.
> > > MPAA -- You listening here??
> > >
> > > I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.
> >
> > Says a lot when they do get paid. Maybe the country ain't worth
> > savin'.
>
> I dispair for the kooks. Maybe my efforts are wasted, perhaps you
> are too far gone to reach. Oh, well, I`ll just ridicule you for fun,
> then, with no expectations that the absurdity of your position will
> occur to you.
>
How much gum are you trying to get off your shoes?
CJ
>
> > CJ
David VP
Those silly plotters. They can set up Oswald so perfectly, but they
can't afford a bar of Camay soap for this "auto mechanic" plotter to
wash his hands with. (Or at least a Bounty paper towel to wipe his
hands on after plugging the President. And what the hell was this guy
doing on the Knoll to get his hands so dirty anyway? Was he rolling
around in the mud behind the picket fence just before the motorcade
arrived?)
"The Camay Theory!" --- Next! On Oprah!
>>> "He {Tippit} is acting like no other police officer on the force. Nobody is stopping cars like that in Dealey Plaza. Nobody is flying in and pushing people out of the way in a store. Nobody is honking their horns in front of houses with assassins inside." <<<
Ya gotta admire this CT-Kook and the unbelievable and unsupportable
shit he spouts non-stop -- if only for the SHEER BALLS that reside
between the legs of this CT-Kook and nothing more! (And there IS
nothing more.)
As my main dude, Mr. Bugliosi, loves to sarcastically say --- "WHERE DO
YOU *BUY* GUTS {BALLS} LIKE THIS?? CAN YOU GET THEM IN ANY OL'
DEPARTMENT STORE?!!"
>>> "The person who was scene [sic; scene?; LOL] in the Shoe Store window, and went into the balcony, and got arrested there, needed an alibi, til the wrong one got arrested." <<<
A CT-Kook jigsaw puzzle here it would appear. I can't even follow this
kook's line of thought. Almost sounds as if he believes it wasn't
Oswald at all seen [no sic needed] by Brewer, but yet another
"imposter" of some kind (the LHO look-alikes were running wild in
Dallas that day we must remember).
"The wrong one got arrested"????
Anybody have any idea what this kook is going on about?
>>> "How much gum are you trying to get off your shoes?" <<<
And how much unsupportable CT bullshit are you willing to peddle before
exploding due to the internal CT-Kook pressure?
Bud
curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > curtj...@webtv.net wrote:
> > > David VP wrote:
> > > > >> "Can you absolutely be sure that he {Tippit} wasn't {the BM shooter, per CT Kooks}?"
> > > >
> > > > Beautiful. I have to prove he wasn't there. Nice.
> > > >
> > > No, you don't have to go quite that far, but you do have to ignore that
> > > there was a 'badgeman' there, 'directing' where there were numerous who
> > > stated there were shots and smoke etc. from there.
> >
> > Smoke and mirrors and blurry photos. More than enough to get kook
> > creative juices flowing.
> >
> Smoke and mirrors? Surely you jest (not as well as me of course).
> Officer Joe M. Smith goes back there in person and sees a badge, and
> sees the dirty hands and nails like a car mechanic,
Yah, he encountered an unknown person 40-plus years ago. That person
is no closer today to being identified as he was over 4 decades ago.
Let me go out on a limb and say you kooks can`t go anywhere with this
information.
> and Malcolm Summers
> sees a coat with a rifle underneath, a badge, and the dirty hands.
Funny, that information must have slipped his mind when he gave his
affidavit to the police the next day. Luckily, it came back to him in
1988.
> > > > And, yes, the weight of the evidence re. Tippit's movements on 11/22
> > > > certainly suggests that he was not even close to DP at 12:30 PM. But
> > > > don't let that tidbit stop you kooks from accusing him of various evil
> > > > deeds. Please.
> > > >
> > > "The weight"? He arrived at the GLOCO, circa, 12:45. Where did he
> > > come from?
> >
> > You`re right, he does seem to need an alibi against the mass of
> > evidence you`ve compliled against him. <snicker>
> >
> Alibi? He is acting like no other police officer on the force.
You only have sketchy information about Tippit, let alone all the
Dallas Police.
> Nobody
> is stopping cars like that in Dealey Plaza. Nobody is flying in and
> pushing people out of the way in a store. Nobody is honking their
> horns in front of houses with assassins inside.
Nobody in the Texas Theater was trying to kill Dallas Police but Oz,
but that you don`t find suspicious behavior. Go figure.
> > > > There are ZERO pieces of evidence to support Tippit's "involvement" in
> > > > JFK's death, which must mean (per kooks) that Tippit WAS involved.
> > > > (It's that "badge" thing that White and Mack came up with no doubt. If
> > > > they had painted on a little pair of wings, then the kooks would claim
> > > > it was Dave Ferrie behind that fence...he was a pilot you see....so who
> > > > else COULD it have been, per the kook quick-trigger thought process. A
> > > > drawn-in Fedora would have equalled Ruby as the Knoll shooter. A really
> > > > skinny gunmen drawn in would have meant Frank Sinatra was taking aim.
> > > > It's obvious.)
> > > >
> > > Many Dallas police hung around Ruby's establishment and one was Tippit.
> >
> > Bullshit. Tippit was a family man who worked two-three jobs.
> >
> Lots of 'family men' of Dallas' Finest were known to establish The
> Carousel. Drinks were generally on the house for them. Who cared as
> an owner when it was a front for the Mob and prostitution where C Notes
> were par for the course.
Innuendo isn`t evidence. You`re lightyears from establishing a
connection between Tippit and Ruby, and you don`t seem to be able to
close the gap any after all these years.
> > > Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood, that just happens
> > > to be of the alleged assassin.
> >
> > He did? Who was it that said they saw him there again?
> >
> He was in the neighborhood assigned. Nobody was assigned there and not
> in twos. The vehicle was just missed by a number which two were
> correct on the vehicle. The six and the 0 could have easily been seen
> as each other. Everybody that could have been there, on duty, was
> checked out, and they were accounted for. Kooks don't like that.
Wow, I don`t see the answer to my question anywhere in there. Let me
repeat it, you seem to have misunderstood it... "Who said they they saw
him there again?" I`ll give you a hint, the answer is "nobody".
> > > He would have no ordinary powers to
> > > know the was a potential assassin. He honks the horn and drives around
> > > the corner very slowly. Oswald is seen in the theater minutes later.
> >
> > Yah, sneaking in to avoid capture for the murder he committed.
> >
> No, probably dropped off by Tippit.
Probably, huh? This probability is butressed by all that evidence
you`ve presented that this took place, eh?
> The Record Store was only a block
> and a half away. He by the best of timelines couldn't have walked to
> the Tippit murder scene or the theater.
The timeline without the firmly established times?
> He was seen in the theater by
> two, almost a half hour before the arrest.
After all that trouble you went to to establish that Oz was at the
boarding house around 1:00? Whoever they saw, it obviously wasn`t Oz.
> > > He still has his bus transfer. Of course Tippit is not a suspect, you
> > > are LLNT.
> >
> > And you are N-U-T-S.
> >
> The L of LNT is for Lunatic, and I save the title for you, you
> Macadamean Morsel.
I just wonder why you don`t see JFK as a suspect also. After all
he was killed by Oz also, why should he get a pass?
> > > > There's nothing uglier than a CT kook who wants to smear Tippit and
> > > > free Saint Oswald too. A double-bill of absurdity.
> > > >
> > > Just a smear tactic to avoid the evidence.
> >
> > No, smearing would be an accurate word to describe your efforts
> > against Tippit`s memory.
> >
> The memory you try to give him, because you won't follow his actions.
His actions are meaningless without more information. That
doesn`t mean supplied from your kook imagination, it means more actual
information with which to view his actions in thier proper context.
> > > > Wanna try for a triple-bill and place Tippit's wife in the Dal-Tex with
> > > > a gun too?
> > > >
> > > Want to prove that Jack Lawrence was never in Dealey Plaza, and was at
> > > work all day on Nov, 22, 1963?
> >
> > Everybody needs an alibi except for the person who many people said
> > they saw shoot Tippit.
> >
> The person who was scene in the Shoe Store window, and went into the
> balcony, and got arrested there, needed an alibi, til the wrong one got
> arrested.
This is the nothingburger you want to subplant the official version
of events? Who saw this person outside his store? Brewer. Who did
Brewer say he saw out his window? Oz. Who saw this mystery man go up
into the balcony. Nobody. So the mystery man no one saw is the culprit,
and the person the witness said he saw is innocent. Those fools on the
WC, why didn`t they sniff glue and create tales like this?
> > > > MPAA -- You listening here??
> > > >
> > > > I'm not spreading this LN disinformation for nothin', ya know! By God.
> > >
> > > Says a lot when they do get paid. Maybe the country ain't worth
> > > savin'.
> >
> > I dispair for the kooks. Maybe my efforts are wasted, perhaps you
> > are too far gone to reach. Oh, well, I`ll just ridicule you for fun,
> > then, with no expectations that the absurdity of your position will
> > occur to you.
> >
> How much gum are you trying to get off your shoes?
Finally you say something that makes some sense.
> CJ
>
> >
> > > CJ
Bud
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Tippit picks out the only house in a neighborhood that just happens to be of the alleged assassin. He honks the horn and drives around the corner very slowly." <<<
>
>
> How nice it must be to be a CT-Kook --- no need to stick to any of the
> known evidence....no need to use any common sense....just make stuff up
> out of The Twilight Zone or via your own fertile imaginations....making
> theories up from whole cloth, in fact, seems to be ENCOURAGED within
> the CT-Kook Society! Remarkable!
>
> Okay, please tell the world HOW you know that Tippit honked his horn in
> front of 1026 Beckley on Nov. 22nd. The proof of that activity would be
> very nice to see. Tippit told you personally just before he was shot to
> death, is that it??? (A great book deal awaits there.)
>
> ~~LIGHT BULB GOES OFF IN HEAD~~
>
> I got it now!! Earlene Roberts' WC testimony has been misinterpreted!
> When she said this.....
>
> "Yes--it {a police car} stopped directly in front of my house and it
> just "tip-tip" and that's the way Officer Alexander and Charles Burnely
> would do when they stopped, and I went to the door and looked and saw
> it wasn't their number." .....
>
> .....What she REALLY was saying (in code, with the "tip-tip" remark)
> was: "Officer Tip-pit" was in that car".
Were Alexander and Burnely the police the usually drove Oz to the
movies in the middle of the day?
In any case, it seems that Dallas Police stopping at that
boardinghouse and tooting thier horns is something that occurs on days
that no Presidents are killed. Test runs, maybe?
Ben Holmes
says...
John Welsh Hodges' book will be published at the same time that Bugliosi's
volumes are. And John's tome will demolish Bugliosi's.
So the mere fact that John's expose of Bugliosi's omissions, misrepresentations,
and probable lies is coming out - is probably already making you tremble.
Ben Holmes
says...
Vince Bugliosi crys when he hears the name of John Welsh Hodges.
David VP
Ah, the make-believe John W. Hodges again, eh??
Amazing guy, this Hodges. He's going to publish an anti-VB book which
will expose all of VB's lies, etc., but somehow this CT book will come
out AT THE SAME TIME as Vincent's.
Remarkable bit of crystal-ball-gazing by your pal Hodges there. How
will he know what to debunk if he publishes at the exact same time as
Vince?
It's nice to have hobbies. .... Like CT-Kookism to name but one.
Can you sew and double-stitch too?
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
In article <1152149685....@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> John Welsh Hodges' book will be published at the same time that Bugliosi's
>> volumes are. And John's tome will demolish Bugliosi's.
>
>Ah, the make-believe John W. Hodges again, eh??
>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "It was Burkley, a superior officer, who ordered Humes to admit that he had burned the notes." <<<
>
>
> A citation proving this claim would be nice.
>
> And, even if true, that means Humes absolutely, positively HAD to
> follow this "order", right?
>
> You're crazy. And confused. One minute the CT-Kooks have Humes fully
> willing to commit perjury when he lied numerous times under oath. And
> the next minute the kooks think that Humes would be willing to tell the
> absolute truth (re. the notes' bonfire).
>
No, you are crazy and stupid. You refuse to look at the evidence when I
post it. The certificate says that it was accepted by Admiral Burkley.
> To remain the slightest bit consistent here, CT-Kooks must also think
> that Dr. Burkley, therefore, ORDERED Humes to tell all those lies to
> the WC too...right?
>
No, no one ever said that.
> Let's see some proof of that silly claim please.
>
>
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md9/html/Image1.htm
>>>> "Because the WC already knew about it {Humes' note-burning incident}. As an astute lawyer you don't ask a question without knowing what the answer will be." <<<
>
>
> And just exactly how does this mean that Humes still HAD to cough up
> that vital information to the WC? If Humes was the rotten lying bastard
> most/many CTers think he is/was, he wouldn't have hesitated for a
> minute to turn into a "hostile witness" (similar to his
> hilariously-hostile and "get the hell off my back!" type of testimony
> he gave to the ARRB in '96) and tell one more lie to add to his
> ever-growing laundry list of untruths he spouted to the WC. Right?
>
You have no idea how things work in Washington. The WC already knew
about Humes's certificate of destruction.
> Also -- HOW do you think the WC came about this knowledge of the Humes'
> note-burning in the first place if HUMES HIMSELF hadn't told SOMEBODY
> about it after it occurred?
>
Of course Humes told somebody. I already said that. He told Burkley,
under orders.
> And, again, there's no way he was FORCED to tell anybody in the first
> place about the note-burning episode.
>
When you are in the military you are forced.
> Full circle we've come. Yessss.
>
> ~End Yoda~
>
David VP
Bullshit.
The "Military Orders" thing is always a nice, convenient CT excuse
though. Looks good on paper.
Grizzlie Antagonist
John Welsh Hodges is a drug-induced product of Hippie Ben Holmes's
imagination. No such individual exists. A Google search under that
name turns up nothing.
David VP
Yes. That's how I knew the person was make-believe also.
cdddraftsman
, I'm sure he meant the shot came from behind . Where it exited ,
cracked the skull , scalloped into the back of head also , but primary
exit is what we see in Zapruder film , right side , above ear . Don't
play coy or stupid , It doesn't work anymore . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Snip and run... snip and run...
>
> Coward, aren't you?
>
>
> In article <1151635823.2...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> What part of "occipital" don't you understand, Davey-boy?
> >
> >And what part of "somewhat" don't you understand, Ben-Spook-Kook.
>
>
> Considering that you snipped the portion of my post that deals with this, you
> can simply go back to it to see the complete rebuttal to this.
>
> Why do you insist on appearing stupid?
>
>
>
> >NONE of the autopsy doctors (in any of their official testimony) have
> >ever placed the large JFK head (exit) wound anywhere except on the
> >RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of the head. Never the "rear" or "back".
>
>
> Untrue. When you need to lie about the evidence, all you've shown is that
> you're a liar. I've already *quoted* the autopsy report's placement in the back
> of the head...
>
> Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
> Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
> inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
> fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
> the President?
> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
> fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
>
> "behind", in Davey-boy's fevered imagination, means the top of the head.
>
>
> >What part of THAT don't you understand, Bennut?
> >
> >Tell me again how all three autopsy docs are rotten cover-up agents?
>
>
> They followed orders.
>
>
> >I like hearing that theory...over & over. It's a howl.
>
> "theory"?
>
> You can't believe what the autopsy doctors *did* say.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> When you are in the military you are forced.
>
>Bullshit.
Asserted by one man who's never served, and denied by another who's never
served.
How amusing!
Ben Holmes
says...
Military orders *were* provably issued in the autopsy room that night.
Ben Holmes
says...
John will be surprised to know that he's "imaginary".
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Slow down Bennuts , the two statements are incompatable with each other
No, they aren't. But I suspect that you wouldn't have enough clues to put it
together.
>, I'm sure he meant the shot came from behind . Where it exited ,
>cracked the skull , scalloped into the back of head also , but primary
>exit is what we see in Zapruder film , right side , above ear .
Unfortunately for you, that's not the location of the large head wound as given
by the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses, many of whom were medically trained.
>Don't play coy or stupid , It doesn't work anymore . Tom Lowry
Why talk with yourself?
Care to place money on whether military orders were issued in the autopsy room
that night?
>> "theory"?
>>
>> You can't believe what the autopsy doctors *did* say.
No response to this, I see. Will you state for the record that you believe the
Autopsy Report is accurate?
Grizzlie Antagonist
Both you and he have one thing in common: Neither of you are members
of the human race.
aeffects
crack open another bottle of vino, your having a tough day, champ!
Grizzlie Antagonist
And another bottle of vino would only make matters worse.
David VP
If he does exist, he's never written another thing, ever...under that
name.
Tell me what else Mr. Hodges has written, Ben-Kook.
And then please tell me how "J.W. Hodges" can possibly release a
VB-bashfest book at the SAME TIME as VB?
He must be one fast reader. (And a mind-reader, to boot.)
David VP
Addendum Reply..........
Dr. Burkley, therefore, seems to be giving "orders" to people that are
way out of bounds for a person who wants/needs this thing "hushed up"
and "covered up".
He tells Humes to testify to the burned notes thing....which (per
CT-Kooks) certainly doesn't look GOOD for the
"conspirators"/"plotters"/"cover-up agents".
So, I'd like to know which way Burkley is supposed to swing in this
air-tight military cover-up? Is he a rotten, lying crook who is willing
to hide all evidence of the conspiracy? Or is he a truth-teller (i.e.,
non-plotter who wasn't "in" on the plot)?
If Burkley's a plotter/cover-up asshole, he wasn't a very good one. He
must not have gotten Hoover's top-secret memo saying: "We're framing
Oswald on the 22nd...make sure you cover-up all signs of multiple
shooters -- Lovingly Yours, JEH".